Liberals have an almost pathological need to minimize their opponents.
Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections in California, almost won the
Republican nomination in 1976, and then won two easy presidential victories.
His presidency saw the second greatest triumphant in American geopolitical
affairs, surpassed only by FDR's leadership in the Second World War, and
transformed the political landscape and social dialogue of America. By
almost any sensible standard, Reagan was among the top four or five presidents
in American history, and he was the second most effective political leader
(again, surpassed only by FDR).

Like the Bourbon Monarchs of France, about whom it was said: "They
never forgot anything, and they never learned anything", liberals
are about to make the same mistake about President-Elect George W. Bush.
First, these pundits - who never face any serious criticism themselves
- have convinced themselves that Gore is bright and Bush is dumb. Mastery
of dubious federal statistics, it seems, is the only indicator of thoughtfulness.

Yes,
Bush has learned during the last year; we have watched him learn, but
that is precisely the point: He is a student of the human condition. Here
is a president who will not just "feel your pain", but will
listen to you seriously. Democrats in Congress have cooled their heels
for six years while an egomaniac manipulated them for his approval ratings
and his legacy. Imagine the delight when these same crusty Democrats -
the same types that Mr. Bush had to deal with in Texas - find a man who
takes them seriously. Republicans need not worry that our next president
will ignore Republican political realities: Remember that Governor Bush
has, almost single-handedly, made Republicans the majority party in Texas.

Senators and Congressmen who perceive a president who keeps his word
and who treats them as his siblings will work with him in ways that Clinton
never understood, and Gore was congenitally incapable of understanding.
These men and women seek office to accomplish objectives. Given the chance
to do so, they will.

What? How about reforming the silly, sad mess of our electoral system?
Can the experiences of Florida, Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Mexico not
be used as clear examples of the need to make the system certain, clear,
and fair? Of course it can, and Bush should hammer that point home early
in his State of Union Address. Fraud, skullduggery, missing ballots, and
the like nearly always favor Democrats, but while there is a strong national
sentiment for reform, Bush should seize it.

End all gerrymandering at all levels of government (Republicans have
a chance to actually win this fight in Congress, because of the muscle
Republicans do not have in state governments). Make ballots uniform, and
create serious checks on residency and citizenship. Congressional hearings
combined with Department of Justice investigations should turn up ample
evidence of the depth of the problem, and if Democrats stand in the way
of reform, then Republicans can, and should, hammer them with this much
more fundamental issue each time a liberal starts to squeak about campaign
finance reform.

The domestic reforms that our next president proposes do not need to
be dramatic; they need to be possible. A tax cut package that is generally
good, but not perfect is much better than heated debates on the optimum
tax system. Education reform that nudges public schools towards choice
and parents towards empowerment is fine - do it.

Budgetary surpluses that chip away at the national debt each year will
keep inflation low and keep investors confident. Bush should propose shortly
after inauguration that Congress pass an omnibus appropriation bill that
funds each agency and department at the same level as the prior fiscal
year, with the promise in good faith to increase or decrease appropriation
in more specific appropriation bills prior to the end of the federal fiscal
year. This is straightforward, honest, and hard to contest.

Simply not passing new lousy federal laws for the next four years will
help conservatives and average Americans a great deal. The Supreme Court
tilts conservative now, and Bush need only to nominate solid conservatives
(over and over again, if necessary) to guarantee that the federal judiciary
begins the process of restoring to us a federal republic. In short, many
sure but modest steps in the same direction - always consulting with individual
Democrats, always willing to listen, never willing to compromise conservative
principles.

Bush should also address directly the serious problem of rule by Executive
Order. This should be thrown in the lap of Congress, and a bipartisan
approach with nearly unanimous consensus demanded: Either a president
can do what Bill Clinton has done - rule by virtual fiat - or Congress
should by statute, and probably by test case to the Supreme Court (which
a Bush Justice Department could instigate) have the other two branches
of government unambiguously say that Bill Clinton crossed the line of
the Constitution many times.

It is, for us, a "win-win" situation: If Democrats and federal
judges are not willing to clearly and publically repudiate what Clinton
did, and create safeguards against it (thus preventing future "Clintonocracy"
and rebuking Clinton yet again) or these Democrats and judges will have
to say what Clinton did was fine - in which case Bush's agenda can be
implemented very quickly indeed!

Politically, Bush must realize that Democrat leadership no longer has
a Scoop Jackson, Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, or even a Daniel Patrick
Moynihan. There are no ideals left to Democrats, and allowing them to
regain power would be a tragedy for America. Therefore our next president
should make many trips to our heartland - the South, the Great Plains,
Rocky Mountain states, the Great Lakes region - and he should work to
strengthen and unify Republicans so that we can hold and increase our
strength in Congress and state governments in these very winnable states.

The key - and it is the key for this Bush Administration - is to realize
that the battle is not over the best policies (almost everyone with a
lick of sense knows that flat and simple tax rates are good, that school
vouchers work, that government spending is wasteful and especially if
it is spent by a federal government that prints its own money). The battle
is over politics: Will the slow, steady movement towards individual liberty,
decentralized government, strong national security, and sensible legal
systems that started twenty years ago continue? If our next president
can do what the Gipper did - and most of us know he can - then we will
win the political battle, and the country will be great again.

As for Al Gore? Well, he intends to be around for awhile (for which we
conservatives should be thankful). Historically he will go down as a William
Jennings Bryan, a three time loser who did worse each election; or a Tom
Dewey, who lost twice and each time did more poorly than expected; or
an Adlai Stephenson, who got whopped in 1952 and then clobbered in 1956.
Count on Gore to divide the Democrats and weaken their voices for years.

Bruce Walker is a frequent contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common
Conservative.